In a combined set of comments submitted on October 31, ACCP and the ACCP Research Institute responded to an NIH Request for Information (NOT-OD-15-009) concerning the possible need for changes in or additions to selected NIH research award programs to better support “the transition of physician-scientists from training to independence.”

Based on the deliberations of an NIH working group that considered the issue for several months, comments were sought concerning the “unique challenges faced by physician-scientists in transitioning to research independence, the possibility of modifying existing award programs to address these challenges, and the possibility of developing a career transition award program for physician-scientists.”

In carefully reviewing the request for information and the output of the working group, ACCP staff and knowledgeable ACCP members with whom staff discussed the issue have concluded, at least at this point, that the particular approach and focus taken by this NIH working group does not appear to reflect fundamental changes in the NIH’s long-standing policy support for Pharm.D.-educated and residency/fellowship-trained clinical pharmacist–scientists in its overall portfolio of grants/awards programs.

However, the presentation of the work and analyses of the task group and the lack of specific mention of Pharm.D.-educated clinical scientists within that work―while “lumping” some other doctorally educated professionals such as dentists and nurses within the definition of “physician-scientists”―were of sufficient concern to the College and the Research Institute to submit the following comments using the required electronic platform:

• We understand that the focus of this particular work group and the comments being sought were intended to address issues of “physician-scientist transition from training to independence.”
• We hope that the omission of Pharm.D. and dual-degree (Pharm.D./Ph.D.) clinical pharmacist–scientists from the focus, discussions, work group membership, and analyses is simply an oversight by the NIH and the work group due to the narrow focus selected to address the problem at hand. However, very similar challenges in the transition from training to independence as clinical researchers exist for clinical pharmacist scientists.
• Given the 30+ year history of recognition of and public support for Pharm.D.-educated and residency/fellowship-trained clinical pharmacist–scientists within the NIH, FDA, AHRQ, and other Federal agencies, we urge that the issue under consideration by the work group be expanded as it moves forward to include our discipline, since the issues outlined as significant for physician-scientists (including dental, veterinary, and nursing in the current iteration) are equally applicable to clinical pharmacist–scientists and researchers.
• We encourage the inclusion of Pharm.D.-educated and residency/fellowship-trained clinical pharmacist–scientists on future work groups and panels dealing with this specific issue as well as the broader issues related to research promotion and advancement. Clinical pharmacist–scientists/researchers are available throughout the federal agencies, colleges and schools of pharmacy and medicine, the private sector and within the membership of ACCP to assist in that effort.
• For further information, we recommend for the work group’s consideration a recent update on the clinical pharmacist–scientist as principal investigator: http://www.accp.com/docs/positions/whitePapers/Pharm3012_ACCP-Burton-PharmD-PI.pdf.
• We welcome the opportunity for further dialogue on this issue with current and future work groups.

ACCP and Research Institute staff will continue to monitor the further deliberations and output of the NIH working group based on the comments it is receiving.